- 46 -
notify the taxpayers in the Fisher and Estate of Satin cases or
notify any other taxpayers of the settlement of the Miller cases.
Respondent ultimately attempted collection from the Fisher and
Estate of Satin taxpayers pursuant to our decision in the
Provizer case and paragraph 5 of the piggyback agreement set
forth above. For reasons explained more fully in our above-cited
opinions, we held that the taxpayers in the Fisher and Estate of
Satin cases were entitled to be bound by the Miller settlement.
Petitioners contend that the protest letter is the
equivalent of a piggyback agreement that would entitle them to
the Miller settlement. We disagree. The piggyback agreement is
an intricately developed contract with specific provisions
tailored to the Plastics Recycling group of cases. Only the
execution of a piggyback agreement by both petitioners and
respondent could reflect the parties’ mutual assent to settle the
instant case based on the disposition of the lead case. See
Fisher v. Commissioner, supra, and Estate of Satin v.
Commissioner, supra, in which counsel for the taxpayers and
respondent’s counsel signed the piggyback agreement. Neither
petitioners’ counsel (or counsel for the general partner) in this
case nor respondent’s counsel executed a piggyback agreement.
Petitioners’ contention that the protest letter approximates a
piggyback agreement is mistaken. At best, the protest letter
indicates an intention that petitioners might be willing to enter
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011